Racial Origin and Earliest Racial History of the Hebrews
Af professor Eugen Fischer
TRANSLATOR'S INTRODUCTION
The August-September 1983 issue of Liberty Bell
contains my translation of and introduction to an article by the
German geneticist, Baron Otmar von Verschuer, in which its author
describes the genetically determined morphological, pathological
and psychological differences between Jews and northern Europeans.
This article was taken from the third volume of the series,
Forschungen zur Judenfrage, published by the Hanseatische
Verlagsanstalt in Hamburg in 1938. The following article by Eugen
Fischer immediately precedes von Verschuor's article.
The peculiar, almost unique advantage of the Forschungen zur
Judenfage lies in the fact that in them distinguished scholars
and scientists examined various aspects of the Jewish question from
a non-Jewish point of view. Of the more than thirty scholars and
scientists who contributed to the series, perhaps none was more
famous than the anthropologist Eugen Fischer, the author of the
article presented below in English translation. Fischer (1874-1967)
held academic posts in Würzburg (where Röntgen had discovered
X-Rays in 1895), Freiburg and Berlin. He was also a director of the
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Genetics and
Eugenics.
In 1913 Fischer published a study, Die Rehobother Bastaards
und das Bastardierungsproblem beim Menschen (The Rehoboth
Bastaards and the Problem of Cross-Breeding in Man). The subjects
of this study were the persons of mixed racial descent (European
men and Hottentot women) in the vicinity of Rehoboth, a locality in
the interior of German South-West Africa east of Walfis Bay. The
great significance of this study lay in the fact that for the first
time proof was furnished that human racial characteristics are
inherited in accordance with Mendel's genetic laws. (I am unable to
find a listing of an English translation of this work.) In 1923
Fischer, together with Erwin Baur and Fritz Lenz, published their
Grundriss der mensenlichen Erblichkeitslehre und
Rassenhygiene. An English translation of this book was
published by Macmillan in 1931 under the title, Human Heredity.
Amongst Fischer's numerous other works is a study of Jews in
antiquity which was written in cooperation with Gerhard Kittel and
which occupies pp.1-236 of the seventh volume of the
Forschungen zur Judenfrage, published in 1943.
Fischer's present article is addressed to the intelligent
layman. His skill as an educator is manifested in his going from
the known to the unknown in tackling the problem of the racial
origins of the ancient Hebrews with all of its complexities. He
thus makes observations on the inherited characteristics of various
breeds of domestic animals with which we are all familiar and the
analogies to the characteristics of various human races. He then
discusses the less well-known environmental and cultural factors
which have brought about the differentiation of mankind into
various races, but explains why it is not easy to trace the
particular origins of most specific races.
This article was originally given as a lecture, one in a series
on the Jewish question given in Munich during July, 1938. The
recognition of the importance of genetic factors in human affairs
was by no means exclusively a feature of National Socialism. We
must bear in mind that during the 1930s there was still a wide
acceptance of eugenic thinking in western Europe and the United
States. A number of states of the United States, for example, had
laws which provided for the sterilization of persons who had
defects considered to be of genetic origin, such as
feeble-mindedness.
Much the opposite situation prevailed at the time in the
U.S.S.R., which had been and was still killing off so many of the
best components of the Russian population. (Cf. Liberty Bell of
May, 1984, page 19 of the article by Paul Knutson, who points out
that we should not underestimate the extent of biological change
that the Bolsheviks' wholesale slaughter brought about in the
Russians and Ukrainians.) In keeping with Communist dogmas of that
time, the doctrines of T. D. Lysenko ("Lysenkoism") discounted
orthodox genetic science and emphasized environmental factors in
the development of plants and animals. This abhorrence of
scientific genetics is also common amongst American "liberals" down
to this very day. Eugenic concepts are especially strongly abhorred
in American academic circles.
The reader should be cautioned about Fischer's use of the
adjective nordisch, which I have simply rendered as Nordic,
although these words night not have exactly the same semantic
function in both languages, since Nordic is frequently used as a
designation of Scandinavians in current English usage. Fischer uses
the word nordisch in a broad sense to designate early speakers of
the Indo-Germanic (Indo-European) languages. These people, to judge
especially from the evidence from diachronic linguistics, developed
in Europe north of the Alps, although the exact location of their
original habitation is uncertain. (Cf. Liberty Bell, June,
1984, pp. 1-3.) They pushed into southern Europe and even as far as
northern India and SriLanka (Ceylon), where they fused to some
extent onto earlier populations as a dominant elite capable of
imposing their language onto the population as a whole. This
process took place in quite remote times, probably pre-literary
times for the most part. In the cases of the Hittites (mentioned
several times by Fischer), for example, this "Nordic" blood was
eventually thinned considerably, even in very ancient times, as the
strongly diluted Indo-Germanic components (largely grammatical
features) of their language would indicate. One need only study the
portraiture on the Greek coins of the fifth to the third centuries
to become aware of how the racial features of "Nordics" dominated
Greece proper and the early Greek colonies in western Asia Minor,
Sicily and southern Italy, at least as an aesthetic ideal. On the
whole, I have retained Fischer's terminology, e.g., Indo-Germanic
rather than Indo-European, the term now predominantly used in the
Anglo-Saxon countries.
Even though Fischer's article was published nearly a half
century ago, even though we now have a more sophisticated knowledge
of the molecular structure of the genes and even though
archaeological dating techniques have improved considerably since
1938, his article is still essentially valid and interesting
reading for those who wish to obtain an objective grasp of the
Jewish problem, which has now largely shifted from Europe to the
United States.
I have been considering various articles in the Forschungen
zur Judenfrage for future translation efforts. These include
an article on Richard Wagner and Jewry, Walter Frank's introductory
address on German scholarship and the Jewish question and an
article on the ascendancy of Jews in the literary life of Germany
during the time of the Weimar Republic, 1919-1933. I would be
interested in expressions of preference on the part of readers of
Liberty Bell. A complete list of the articles in the first six
volumes of the Forschungen zur Judenfrage is given on
pages 22-24 of my translation of the article by Verschuer in the
August-September, 1983, issue of Liberty Bell.
Charles E. Weber, Ph.D.
RACIAL ORIGIN AND EARLIEST RACIAL HISTORY OF THE
HEBREWS
By professor Eugen Fischer
This lecture is not intended to contribute new anthropological
material, but rather simply to present observations from the point
of view of racial research concerning the biological aspect of the
origin of the Hebrew people. An examination of the historical and
philological original research projects had to be omitted. These
are not the author's field. For that reason source notes were
omitted entirely.
Professor Eugen Fischer in 1938
The question of the origin of a single, particular, present-day
human race involves two groups of phenomena which, in fact, are
closely related to each other; for one thing, the question of the
place, the time and, above all, the external circumstances of the
formation of the race, and, for another thing, the question of the
racial initial form and its individual stages of modification from
this initial form down to the time of its present character. Since
it is a matter of developments in the distant past, the initial
questions concerning the environment and the actual developments
can be examined only indirectly. The other questions concerning the
past forms (of the race) can be answered only if a fortunate chance
has preserved for us remains from the past. For this reason, in the
investigation of the origin of a particular race our knowledge of
the origin of races in general must be presented in order to
attempt then, to apply these data to the particular race while
taking into account the geographical and chronological
circumstances. The significance of selection and adaptation in
general and in the area of origin, in this case the prehistoric
Near East, will prove to be important, not only for the time of the
origin, but also for the further development. Hence, after these
general considerations I would like to describe the traces of
prehistorical man in Palestine. These have a bearing, in turn, on
the question to what extent the population which now emerges into
the light of history, as Semites and then as Hebrews, descends from
that prehistorical man. Only then can a racial history of the
Semites be attempted and the original racial composition of the
Jews and the absorption of subsequent racial elements into the
Jewish nation that had developed be described down to the time of
the extinction of the Jewish state.
We have had an understanding of the origin of human races only
since that time when human genetics has furnished us the absolute
proof that all human racial characteristics are genetic
characteristics and only such characteristics.
This proof is furnished by the investigation of racial
cross-breedings, by which it was shown beyond any doubt that the
characteristics in question are transmitted without exception in
accordance with Mendel's genetic laws in the first and second
generations of persons of mixed breed. (Then, of course, into
further generations.) These racial characteristics, like all other
inherited characteristics, are thus based on individual, specific
genetic predispositions which we call "factors," the bases of which
we call "genes." In this connection it has been learned that, as in
the case of all other hereditary characteristics, the hereditary
predisposition permits a certain range of reaction for its
realization in actual development, even in the case of racial
hereditary characteristics. Within this range the environment
brings about the actual development. The range of reaction is of
quite varied magnitude in the case of the inherited
characteristics, including racial characteristics. In the so-called
blood groups, for example, this range amounts to zero, so far as we
know. In the case of body height, the range is rather broad. A
person, for example, does not inherit a height of 1.70 meters
(=6603 inches) but rather a "tall build." Whether he then actually
attains a height of 1.66 or 1.82 meters or his 1.70 meters depends
on the effects of environment. Moreover, he inherits his tendency
to tallness, no matter whether he has reached Its lower or upper
genetically possible height. The environmental effects, as such,
are never inherited. Races are groups of people with quite specific
hereditary predispositions which are purely hereditary in them and
which are lacking in other races. Every race, of course, also has
in addition hereditary predispositions which are also present in
certain other races and ultimately such hereditary predispositions
which are present in all human beings. For obvious reasons it must
be especially emphasized that mental hereditary predispositions are
amongst those that belong to one race exclusively as well as those
which are characteristic of human beings in general. We have
conclusive proof that mental and psychological characteristics are
just as much based on hereditary predispositions as are physical
characteristics, normal and pathological ones. (This is not to say
anything about the mental and psychological aspects per se and
their relation to bodily predispositions.) (The sentence in
parentheses apparently refers to the correlations of body types
with psychological characteristics as presented in such works as
Ernst Kietschmer's Körperbau und Charakter, 1921, and works by W.
H. Sheldon. -- Translator) What was said above concerning the range
of reaction is just as true of mental predispositions as bodily
ones. Within this range there is the effect of education and other
environmental factors.
Race is thus a totality of immutable characteristics of a
physical and mental-psychological kind determined by its genetic
composite. Race is not simply some given body form group, nor is it
simply a distinction which can be made from other such groups on
the basis of a couple of external characteristics. It is an
exclusive biological unit which has come about by special, orderly
processes in the genetic mass, sharply differentiated genetically
from other such units. The processes which led to it are known to
us from the general study of genetics. It is very difficult or
often impossible to survey and describe their particular
development in the particular case of a quite specific race.
Our ideas about the origin of races must start out with the
demonstrated reality of an originally undifferentiated human race.
Just as all forms of animals living in the wild are
undifferentiated and just as they exhibit, at the most, minor
variations of size and color in the case of an extensive
geographical range, the earliest man was an undifferentiated form.
There can be no detailed discussion at this point of the proofs
afforded by morphology, physiology, psychology and pathology. This
human race thus also had a common stock of genetic material and,
except for individual hereditary lines, a uniform stock of genetic
factors. As mentioned above, the genetic factors per se are
independent of the environmental factors which have an effect on
the body. However, the gene is not entirely and completely
immutable forever. There are changes, albeit rare, of individual
genes which we call mutations. Generally, we do not know their
causes. We can produce mutations artificially by means of X-rays
and by means of certain poisons (in the case of plants). They are
almost always pathological. In nature we occasionally see the
occurrence of a mutation without any recognizable cause. In this
way albinos, for example, occur (white stags, white bats, white
blackbirds, and white domestic animals). In human beings, too,
there are these mutations, and indeed in all races. In the case of
the animals living in the wild such mutations are eliminated in the
callous eradication process of nature. The only animals which are
divided into numerous races, like man, are the domestic animals.
The racial characteristics of these animals are just as hereditary
as those of human beings, as racial crossing has demonstrated in
this case also. We can not go into details at this point. The fact
that all racial characteristics of our domestic animals are
anatomically and genetically quite analogous to the racial
characteristics of man can be seen, for example, in the color
differences of blond, brunette, red, black in the hair of human
races, horses, bovines, dogs, etc. Curly hair, straight hair, and
stiff hair correspond to the same forms in the case of domestic
animals (for example, the Angora). Dwarf build, tall build, forms
of lips, forms of noses (e.g., ram's nose), colors of eyes and all
such racial differences are found in domestic animals and man.
Things are similar down to the finest details of the tissue
structure. The breeds of domestic animals have come into existence
by virtue of the fact that mutations which have arisen
"spontaneously," i.e., for unknown reasons, have not been
eliminated, for example, but have been retained artificially by the
breeder. There is quite strong evidence that life in the
domesticated condition causes the occurrence of numerous mutations
by the change of nutritional factors, temperature maintenance and
reproductive conditions, as opposed to life in the wild. The breeds
of domestic animals thus came about by their selection and
combination. It should be emphasized that their differences are not
only of an exterior physical nature, but also of a physiological
and psychological nature. This means that metabolic processes,
capacities, and mental characteristics are racially clearly
different in the case of individual domestic breeds. That, too, is
based on mutation and its breeding.
The formation of human races must also be based on the same
laws, because the human genes are basically analogous. After man
became man, with the beginnings of his civilization, with the use
of fire and hence the great broadening of his nutritional
possibilities, with tools, language and social institutions, he
lived, from a biological point of view, basically in a condition
which corresponds completely to that of domestic animals. In
keeping with this, numerous mutations occurred. In this case
arbitrary choice and caprice take over the rôle of deliberate
breeding of the races of domestic animals. Selection and breeding
by external factors were also not lacking at first. At the same
time humanity migrated in groups from its place of origin over the
whole earth. No mammal is the equal of man in that regard. The
constant venturing into new environmental conditions, in some cases
of a quite different kind, must have had a tremendously selective
effect and wiped out unsuitable mutations. The isolating of
individual groups by emigration now made possible for the first
time the preservation of genetic mutations which had occurred in
conjunction with the effect of (natural) selection. These ideas,
which were converted into a well-founded theory on the basis of
observations on domestic animals, are fully confirmed by the
skeletal remains preserved for us from the early time of man. From
the area of origin which the Java Man and the Peking Man indicate
to us, man at the Neanderthal stage of development (that is, even
before the last glacial period) spread out as far as the
inhabitable northern edge, the western end and the southern part of
Europe and as far as the southern tip of Africa. However, the human
form, as far as we can determine, is still almost uniform (at this
time). Furthermore, this form will also encounter us on Palestinian
soil. At the time of, but toward the end of the last glacial
period, the next migratory wave now covers the whole world.
However, the formation of rates has now commenced and the finds
show us differences in the shape of the skull, facial form and
tallness which we can only interpret as racial differences. From
this time on, mankind is divided into races. It may probably be
assumed that the differences now became fully established and
strengthened during the course of the subsequent periods.
The processes which led to the development of races are thus the
occurrence of mutations, the isolating of tribes by migration, the
increase of the frequency of mutations by cultural influences
(domestication), the change of climatic and other environmental
effects through migration and by the change of climate in the
glacial and post-glacial periods, adaptation by selective
processes, evolution and growth or decline. Thus, the different
nature of the races would seem to depend on the kind of mutations,
on the one hand, and the phenomena of selection and adaptation on
the other hand. Certain mental and psychological characteristics
will be decisive factors in this regard even if, naturally,
physical health, efficiency and adaptation of physiological
developments to the environment have always been an absolute
requisite for the prospering of the race in question. Only in this
manner can we explain the simply remarkable adaptation of many
races to their environment. I am thinking, for example, of the
special adaptation of the Bushman to the life in the sand of his
desert and prairie, of his sharpness of senses, of his capacity to
go without food and water and to walk around in the hot sun and
dryness and his lack of capacity for sedentary work or any very
high mental achievement. Migratory races with certain mental
talents and a simultaneous physical capacity will withdraw from
desolate regions and leave them to inferior races, but they will,
when caught up in the climatic change of the glacial periods, for
example, become a battle-accustomed, special race of strong
character in an extremely selective process under unfavorable
conditions, such as along the edge of the ice, by taking up a
struggle for mere existence. The Nordic race is an example of such
a race. Thus, the interaction between the gene stock of a mental
and physical nature provided by mutation and the environment, with
its selective effect, brings about the varied nature of the
individual races. In view of this, it becomes immediately clear
that races from one branch can develop in an infinitely diverse
manner by that force, while other races can become similar to one
another without being especially close to each other in a
genealogical sense. Individual characteristics of a physical and
mental nature, moreover, can arise separately and independently of
each other by the appropriate mutation and appropriate selection at
various locations of the human race. (This can be readily
demonstrated in the case of certain physical characteristics.)
This outline should show that we comprehend the origin of races
quite well in a general sense, after all. The basic aspects seem
well established. On the other hand, tremendous and largely
insoluble problems arise at once when it is a question of tracing
the origin of a single, quite specific race within the general
framework. Actually, we have more or less complete information only
in a single case; that is the origin of the Westphalian (Falid)
type of the Nordic race from the late Paleolithic Cro-Magnon race.
Here we have, indeed, the fossil records with rather few gaps down
to the present-day representation in the living population. In the
case of all other races the glacial and post-glacial forerunners
are uncertain or completely unknown. Even the place of origin and
hence the external conditions and the selective processes are, in
most cases, uncertain or at most are to be assumed with some degree
of probability . This is also the case with the question before us
today with regard to the origin of those races which were and still
are the bearers of the Semitic civilizations and hence also with
regard to the origin of the Jews.
This question leads us initially not only to Palestine, as far
as the area is concerned, but also to the land of the Tigris and
Euphrates, from the Persian Gulf on up to the Armenian highlands
and Asia Minor and thence down to Arabia and over as far as Egypt.
Since we know that the Semitic peoples did not migrate into their
later dwelling areas until early historical times, the skull
remains of Palestine originating from the previous time are of
value to us for the racial history of the immigrants only to the
extent that they give us evidence concerning the possible
substratum which was absorbed by the immigrating conquerors.
In Palestine the oldest finds of human remains extend
chronologically before the beginning of the last glacial period.
They are the famous, so-called Galilee skull from Tabona on the Sea
of Chinnereth and perhaps also a find from Mount Carmel. It is a
human being from the group of the Neanderthal man, the form of
development which preceded present-day humanity. Even if there are
only these sparse finds, numerous flint tools originating at this
time in various localities of the country show that this human
being permeated the whole country. This find is not geographically
isolated. We may assume that all of the Near East and North Africa
and Europe shared that form of human being. Proceeding from
Palestine, the nearest finds are certain finds of teeth from Malta
and, further to the west, the Neanderthal skull from Rome. To the
north, the Palestine find is connected with a skull find from
Podkumok north of the Caucasus. From there the finds go in a
westward direction to Moravia, Croatia, central Europe and western
Europe. But this type of human being might not have been absorbed
into the later Near Eastern population, or at least we have no
reason for such an assumption. Such a human type perhaps died out
or emigrated and might have been replaced by later types during the
course of the following glacial period. However, we know nothing
about these later forms. During the glacial period which now came
about, when the Cro-Magnon man and other races were living in
Europe (and not only in Europe, because the Cro-Magnon races also
entered northern Africa and even eastern Africa), during this
period when Europe was covered with ice except for a narrow central
belt and its southern peninsulas, there was neither a Sahara nor
the deserts of Arabia and the Near East. These were all fertile
land under the southern rain climate dependent on the ice cover.
Thus, there were tremendously large areas where tribes that had
immigrated could form races. Moreover, during the course of, let us
say, forty thousand years, this region underwent a worsening of the
climate which was not even, but with periodic declines of heat.
There took place a slow drying up down to the time of the present
forming of deserts. It was only the very most recent reshapings of
the land, such as the formation of the fertile land subject to
inundation along the lower valley of the Tigris and Euphrates and
the final sanding up of many Arabian rivers that are retained in
the memory of the first men recorded in history. These reshapings
were recorded in the writings of the Sumerians, the later
Babylonians, the Hebrews, etc. What is interesting to us in this
connection took place earlier. The finds which are chronologically
closest after those on Palestinian soil mentioned above are only
from the later Stone Age, when man had domestic animals along with
polished stone instruments, tilled the soil and possessed the art
of ceramics. As the most important find, I mention that of Gezer
(situated between Jerusalem and the coast), where bodily remains of
these settlers are preserved for us. These remains, unfortunately,
are quite sparse. These people, as far as we may conclude from the
several skeletons, were rather slight of build and dolichocephalic.
In most cases cremation took place. Even in this case, cultural
remains show that the settlement was widely distributed across the
region. Concerning their ethnicity and language we know nothing.
This might coincide chronologically with the time in which we see
the first makers of Bandkeramik and Schnurkeramik (Neolithic
pottery styles decorated by bands or imprints of string) coming
onto the scene in central Europe. We might classify these Gezer
people as members of the Mediterranean race. (This designation is
better than the "Western" preferred by Günther; the two terms
intend to convey the same meaning.) From present-day ethnology we
know that the whole edge of northern Africa as well as southern
Italy, the large Mediterranean islands and the Iberian Peninsula,
and even the Atlantic coasts of southern France and England, were
occupied by their race before the arrival of the Indo-Germanic
people. Although it is not proved, everything can be said for and
nothing against the assumption that this Mediterranean race
originated in the broad zone of northern-Africa, which was quite
habitable during the glacial period, as I have pointed out. This
race spread out toward the west as well as toward the east, over
the Near East and as far as western India. In India huge finds have
come to light which might belong to this race. In this huge area
particular branches might have sprung up in the lap of this race in
the manner which I have described above. I assume that such a
separate region was the present Arabian peninsula, an area
spacially separated from the rest by the Red Sea and the Persian
Gulf, which extended far to the north at that time. As a result of
the climatic fate of this land, a special race probably developed
from the same root as the Mediterranean race, which I designated as
the "Oriental" race many years ago. This name is now in general
use. During the course of the declining glacial period, which was a
period of slowly declining rainfall and moisture in this area in
transition from forested and open land to a prairie or even sandy
desert, these people, whose origin from a truly glacial period we
do not know, had to adapt themselves slowly to these changing
conditions. Here, in this tremendous space, the climatic change of
which was certainly uneven from zone to zone, inbreeding groups
could form with a pronounced natural selection that favored certain
mutations. That is the manner in which I postulate the origin
somewhere in this region of the "Oriental" race from the lap of the
proto-Mediterranean race. The "Oriental" race, with the nose form,
eye form, color of the skin and hair and all the other
characteristics peculiar to it, received its form in this area. And
primarily amongst all these characteristics, the psychological type
of this race was formed here, its adaptation to the initially poor
life, the formation of mental capacities for the creation of the
civilization of a sheep-raising, half nomadic grassland
population.
Indeed, today we view the development in such a manner that we
attribute to the game hunters or primitive hunters a certain
tendency to remain in one location, the taming of animals and first
attempts to sow seeds of nutritional plants at favorable places and
we assume the origin of the first stages of cultivation with the
hoe from these activities. The transformation of the game-rich
forest into open land and then grassland its the taming of goats
and sheep (the dog had already long ago been tamed). Sheep-farmers
come into existence, for whom the pasturing involves a nomadic
movement, but not the life of a true desert nomad. At fertile
places (later oases) settlement takes place for a longer period and
cultivation with the hoe is carried on. In regions of rather
extensive drying out the true desert nomad might develop from this
stage, as we see in the area of that "Oriental" race, a final form
of a cultural specialization. On the other hand, however, the
sheep-raising people who carry on some cultivation with the hoe and
who have a tendency to settle, even if not permanently, will arrive
at a true agricultural existence and then become city builders and
city dwellers. The fact that, along with all such developments
extending over millennia, a very distinctive mental-psychological
type developed in every case is taken quite for granted by the
biologist, but let us emphasize it. This distinctive type, once
having come into being by selective breeding, will be eradicated
only by an opposing, strongly selective process. In general, thus,
it will exist during the coming centuries or millennia. This type
is characteristic of the Oriental race.
Furthermore, the later Jewish people have preserved for
themselves the recollections of those earlier stages. The tales of
Abel, who was a herdsman, and Cain, who was engaged in agriculture,
(along with) the tale of Abraham's sheep trade with his
brother-in-law and the migrations through the desert indicate that.
Just as with these recollections, certain mental and psychological
characteristics have remained and have their effects to this
day.
This Oriental race is relatively pure, the basic stock of the
so-called southern Semites, i.e., the present-day Arabs, who thus
partly underwent the development to real desert nomads and partly,
at a somewhat earlier state, probably likewise arrived at a settled
existence. Furthermore, this race is the basic stock of all those
Semites who spread out onto African soil in numerous thrusts in
prehistoric times and who were absorbed into the Egyptian people
and many other Hamitic peoples, along with a strong interbreeding
with Negroes.
The later, so-called northern Semites (Assyrians, Babylonians,
Aramaeans, Phoenicians, and others) likewise developed from this
same race. However, they spread out from the original area and
encountered other racial elements with whom they mixed in close
contact, with some elements more, with others less. These contacts
caused them to be different from the southern Semites. Amongst
these northern Semites naturally, are the Hebrews we are
considering.
As mentioned above, during the later Stone Age, that is, many
thousands of years later than the time of the origin of races and
the geological revolutions, there were located in Syria and
Palestine those people whom we call Gezer Man on the basis of the
place where their remains were found. Around this time and further
to the north, i.e., in the upper Tigris and Euphrates country, in
all of Asia Minor, in the highlands of Iran and as far as Hindu
Kush, another race must have been settled. We simply designate this
race as the "Near Eastern" race (von Luschan's Armenids). We have
no finds which prove its existence from such a remote time. We
presume the existence of this race, which will later be
demonstrated. We do not believe that this race even originated in
the aforementioned area, but we do not know its origin. It seems
most logical to think of central Asia. We have ideas concerning the
shape of its skull from burial finds of approximately the fourth
millennium (B.C.) and from the distribution of certain racial
elements. This conclusion seems to me to be sufficiently
established.
One can see that these conclusions, which are based purely on
prehistoric finds of skulls and tools, and the results of
geological, climatic and general biological considerations furnish
a certain basis, but nothing else. Let us now turn to other sources
of information.
In the case of prehistoric finds, mention must be made of
another circumstance. Still other people must have entered the
Palestinian area toward the end of the later Stone Age. They
erected large stone monuments, prominent single rocks, gigantic
tables, etc. One speaks of the Palestinian megalith culture. Even
the Old Testament mentions this already. Megalith graves can be
traced from southern Scandinavia across the whole Atlantic coast of
Europe, over the entire northern edge of Africa and the southern
edge of Europe, across the Balkan area, across the Crimea and as
far as the Caucasus. It cannot be determined if a single ethnic
group spread them about or if the custom of this ethnic group as
such was transplanted. As for myself, I imagine that bold
migrations of people of the Cro-Magnon race from northwestern and
western Europe set up and left their prominent monuments here. I
consider these bold migrations to be the first ones, which were
followed by numerous others before and during the second millennium
(see below). I do not believe that their blood was mixed into that
of the native population in appreciable quantities at the places
involved. They came as militarily organized conquerors ("Vikings"!)
erected their monuments and then went away. This phenomenon is
mentioned here just for the sake of completeness.
If one attempts to ascertain the racial history of the
"Semites," one is dependent, for one thing, on the data which
archaeology furnishes us from the wonderful excavation discoveries
of temples and palaces, of pictorial works and utensils, and data
concerning the rise and fall of civilizations and their migrations.
One is further dependent on the research of linguists which reveals
to us ancient origins and relationships from the vocabulary of the
individual ethnic groups or at least from language remnants of
their proper names or the like. (An American analogy is the
retention of Indian words in place names such as Ohio, Oklahoma,
Mississippi, etc. -- Translator) Finally, anthropological
investigation of present-day inhabitants of the areas which we may
think of as "retreat areas" of ancient population strata furnishes
us an indication of earlier (conditions). Such retreat areas are
remote mountain valleys and the least fertile parts of the land,
but also, in a figurative sense of the word, membership in
religious sects and circles of nobility and other social isolation.
In Asia Minor and the Armenian highlands we have many of such
retreat areas. The anthropological study of these retreat areas by
von Luschan helped to throw a powerful light on the question we are
examining. Finally, racial history has as a basis the actual finds
of skulls or other human remains from early historical times. These
finds have been increasing during the past few years to a pleasing
and astonishing extent. In addition to these skulls, there are also
portrayals of the people created by themselves and their kind.
Quite honest criticism, cautious evaluation and a knowledge of the
art work in question and its history are necessary for an attempt
at an anthropological interpretation on the basis of the excavated
portrayal of the human countenance. With regard to such
interpretation, I usually say that one must consider what the
artist in question "could," "was permitted" and "intended."
However, by means of this criticism one can actually obtain a
realistic picture from the heads which Sumerians and Subarians, the
Hittites, Babylonians, and Egyptians have passed down to us. All
these sources together permit us to construct the following
approximate outline.
Prior to the fourth millennium, as previously mentioned, the
Near Eastern race might have been spread out in the entire area to
the north and to the east of Palestine, which is of interest to us.
We know this race, in terms of its bodily characteristics,
primarily from von Luschan's investigations of the small ethnic and
sect groups, such as the Ansarijeh, Tachtadshi, Kyzylbash, and
others, as well as those amongst the Lycians, Druzes, Maronites,
etc. Hauschild and Wagenseil have confirmed to a considerable
extent the occurrence of these types by investigations in the
Turkish army during the (First World) War. Moreover, this racial
picture corresponds quite well to the relief portraits which were
formerly known by the name Hittite, from Sendshirli, for example,
and which are now called Subarian. Accordingly, the Near Eastern
race (also called Armenoid or proto-Armenian) was of medium stature
and had a coarse bodily structure, dark hair and dark eyes.
However, as quite distinctive features this race had a very short,
high skull with a quite flat occiput, which von Luschan described
"as if hacked off." The coarse face with a perpendicular forehead
is dominated by an extraordinarily large, coarse, strongly
projecting hooked nose. As shown by the well-known sculptures of
Sendshirli and other places, this race was the bearer of the
so-called Hittite civilization, or more precisely, the Subarian
civilization.
However, one must not imagine that this Near Eastern race was
the only one in the area or that it filled up the entire area. It
perhaps simply moved in as the dominant one. The strong impression
made by von Luschan's survey and brilliant portrayal of this race
has hitherto caused the investigators to assume tacitly that really
only this race and the previously described Orientalid race should
be taken into consideration at all. In fact, nothing of the sort
can be concluded from von Luschan's descriptions. Only in remnants
and in the most remote places did he find them still extant. At all
other places, that is, in a very great part of the countries
involved, a population is present which cannot be traced back to
the Orientalid race. Now, new finds have clearly demonstrated the
presence of the Mediterranean race. Such finds, for example, are
the quite splendid ones from Alisar in northeastern Asia Minor
dating from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. If the Neolithic Gezer
group were really also Mediterranean, the conclusion is suggested
that the Mediterranean race was once the dominant one before the
invasion of the Orientalid race from the south and the Near Eastern
race from the north. The Mediterranean race was then absorbed as a
basic component into all the later populations. This race also
witnessed the mighty displacement of land and water in that area,
the formation of the delta of the Tigris and Euphrates, the coastal
shift of the Persian Gulf and the mighty flood periods, the memory
of which is in the Biblical Deluge, which the Jews took over from
the Sumerians almost word for word.
Perhaps the picture is now becoming even somewhat more
complicated. Certain observations on the Alisar find {NOTE:
Krogman, Cranial types from Alisar Hüyück, Orient. Inst. Publ.
V.30} argue that in addition to (previous to?) the short-skulled
Near Eastern race the round-skulled central European Alpine race
(Günther calls them ostisch {=Eastern}, a term I consider
misleading) was established in Asia Minor. In Neolithic times,
their area of distribution extended certainly to Spain in the west,
while the Near East was their eastern extent. That would correspond
well with certain conclusions of linguistic research about the
connections of the Basque languages with the languages of the
Caucasus and Asia Minor. With regard to the Sumerian question, too,
the key could lie here from an anthropological point of view.
Let us turn from the races to the historically recorded nations.
In the southern part of Mesopotamia we do indeed find the nation of
the Sumerians as the oldest known settlers. This nation is a puzzle
to us with regard to origin and race. The achievement in the
construction of gigantic temples and the production of art works
that it attained is astonishing. It was established there certainly
toward the end of the fifth millennium. The wonderful excavations
in Ur and Kish have crowned our knowledge of this civilization. As
mentioned, the racial origin (of the Sumerians) is uncertain. In
certain documents they are called "black heads." Some of the skulls
that have been found are reputed to exhibit a long, narrow form
(?). The portraits are round-headed with pointed, short little
noses. The physiques are represented as stocky. Their language was
not Indo-Germanic and not Semitic. Some linguists conjecture Turan
(agglutinating) languages, but they were certainly not Mongolids.
Other linguists find a linguistic connection with the Caucasus and
pre-Indo-Germanic southern Europe. From an anthropological point of
view, one can first conjecture the Alpine race on the basis of the
portraits. This would be in keeping with the remarks above. But one
must also think of the Mediterranean race if one hears that they
came from the east and previously honored their gods on mountains.
One could conjecture a reverse wave of the Mediterranean race out
of India.
In any event, the Sumerians settled in lower Mesopotamia, namely
as builders of villages and cities. They were constantly disturbed
and as early as the fourth millennium they had constant fights with
roaming hoards. Bedouins, as we would call them today, attacked
them repeatedly, took parts of their land and then were overcome
and probably also assimilated by them. I imagine that in these
early times, in the case of very many "tribes," no definite
cultural forms had taken shape as yet and that they only created
their later forms, of course. Thus, there were probably migratory
groups which exhibited all possible stages of economic forms, in
some cases people beginning to settle and looking for fertile land
for cultivation with the hoe, in some cases half-sedentary sheep
nomads, while in other cases true desert nomads. The struggle
between all such forms lasted for centuries until the immigration
from the south became ever stronger and the government and ethnic
identity of the Sumerians broke up under their pressure. Semitic
cultures took their place.
Beginning with the fourth millennium, as mentioned, the
Orientalid race moved from the south to the north from its
previously described places of origin. Here, there took place the
transition from the sheep raiser and settler cultivating with the
hoe to the true village dweller and farmer to, finally, the urban
civilization. This development certainly repeatedly involved a
strong selective process in a certain direction. The legends and
literary monuments of the Sumerians and later of the Babylonians,
Assyrians and Hebrews inform us in agreement about the struggles
lasting thousands of years between such invading groups and groups
in the process of becoming settled on the one hand and on the other
hand settled Mediterranean groups and groups of the Near Eastern
race invading in the opposite direction from the north. Thus, in
the origin of the Semitic peoples of the Near East (northern
Semites) three races can be discerned. Of these three, one, the
Orientalid race, might be the main element which brought with it
the actual Semitic language and civilization and the mind of the
sheep-tending nomads of the plains. This race penetrated the "Near
Eastern" race, furnished it physical and mental characteristics and
finally penetrated the Mediterranean race, which was established
there as the old population and was absorbed into all Semitic
peoples (Babylonians and Assyrians) by way of the Sumerians.
However, the picture is not yet complete at this point. From
historical sources we learn also about invasions of conquerors of
another origin. And that is also of particular anthropological
interest to us and it is of no small importance in the origin of
the final racial composition of the Hebrew nation.
There was a great astonishment at the time when it could be
proved beyond question that the Hittite language is an
Indo-Germanic language. Hence, a conqueror speaking an
Indo-Germanic language must have entered the Suberian civilization
at one time. (It was) probably only a thin dominant stratum which
imposed its language on the population. In this process native
linguistic elements were fused into it in large quantities. Now we
know, of course, that the creators of the Indo-Germanic language
group were the Nordic race. Elements of this race were thus
unquestionably involved in that invasion, which began before the
outset of the second millennium. However, we must not imagine the
arriving people as exclusively blond and blue-eyed or simply purely
Nordic. The route from the original homeland to the Near East was
far and must have been covered over long periods of time, with long
halts and conquests at other places. By that time only a dominant
element might have possessed the remnants of the Nordic race. A
migration of these conquerors so far away is perhaps not quite so
unique. A thousand years later we see immigrations; of people with
the names Thracians and Phrygians, likewise dominated and
influenced by Nordics, invading Asia Minor. Around a thousand years
before these, invasions back from India seem to have taken place
into upper Mesopotamia by people known as Mithanni or Manda, who
likewise brought with them Indo-Germanic linguistic material. From
these Hittites came a quite considerable component into that
Semitic branch also, which we later find in the form of Israel. The
Amurites of the Bible also belong to this movement from the north
that was subject to Indo-Germanic influences. The Amurites also had
Nordic elements, at least as an upper stratum.
If this picture represents in broad outlines the movements of
races and nations during the fourth to second millennia in the Near
Eastern area, the origin of the Hebrew nation in particular must
now be further characterized.
It is not the task of the anthropologist to do that; I am simply
going to point out things and present material which is already
known. Of the Semitic immigrants, many groups became settled
founders of cities while being fused with the previous population
and while absorbing foreign elements, as described above. Amongst
these were the Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians and even others.
However, other groups remained migratory herdsmen for a rather long
time, as were the Aramaeans, sheep nomads in the highlands of
northern Mesopotamia and the Jordan highlands, and in the same area
the Hebrews, who pastured their sheep in the eastern part of the
Jordan valley. They and the Moabites, Edomites and others thus
moved through the whole land of Jordan and the region south of the
Dead Sea and on northward as far as Syria around 1400 B.C.
("Abraham" came from Ur in Chaldaea!) The Aramaeans went over to a
settled formation of government at the beginning of the second
millennium in Syria. At first the Hebrews remained sheep herders.
That was the time of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Times
of particular dryness caused some of the sheep-herding tribes
(probably not all of them) to retreat to the southwest and to seek
better pastures in the upper delta region of the Nile. Seti I
received them there in his border region. That, then, is the
oppression in Egyptian captivity described in the Bible, probably
until Moses led them over the sea of bulrushes to the oasis of
Kadesh in the Sinai peninsula, perhaps before 1250 B.C. Here these
tribes might have fused together as a race during the approximately
sixty-year sojourn under Moses' rule. In two thrusts they then
moved into the eastern Jordan region (they have been estimated at
25,000 souls) and from there they pushed into Palestine proper.
They fused with the people who remained there and who were pressing
into Palestine from the northeast. Here they interposed themselves
amongst the Canaanite settlers who were present. As nomads they
were inferior to the peasants in many ways, but they were mentally
capable of finally gaining the upper hand and becoming settled
themselves.
Their spirit is demonstrated in the promise, "A land of wheat
and barley, of the grape vine, the fig and pomegranate, etc., with
large and bountiful cities which you have not built, houses full of
all sorts of good things which you have not filled, wells that have
been dug, but not by you, vineyards and olive trees which you have
not planted." (According to Auerbach.) But little by little they
acquired all those things.
The son of the plain pressed into all of that and he knew how to
adapt himself. Of course, there were centuries of bitter war,
actual military wars and, in an extended sense, economic wars and
wars against climate and events of nature. Thus, the nation
evolved. In this connection, from a racial point of view, the
imposing of a stratum on an already settled population, which was
the Orientalid-Mediterranean-Near Eastern race, by a race which had
not yet been settled, a race which was at first purely Orientalid,
is of interest. What the quantitative ratio was in this mixture of
blood cannot be determined. However, even still other foreign
admixtures must now be emphasized. To the north lay the kingdom of
the Hittites; their racial basis was described above. Their blood
entered abundantly into the northern tribes of Israel. Furthermore,
the Amurites were present and played a leading rôle. The land of
the Amuri is known from cuneiform inscriptions. According to
pictures, especially from Egyptian representations, (they were)
bearded people with long faces and long heads with stout but not
hooked noses. To judge from a number of intellectual traits, these
people were also Indo-Germanic, at least as an upper stratum, that
is, they were racially Nordic. The constant admonitions and
interdictions of the Jews' prophets and lawgivers alone prove that
a mixing of blood with all these non-Semitic elements was
constantly taking place. The Horites, who were mentioned in the
Bible and known from other sources might have had the same origin,
perhaps separated off the movement which brought the Aryans to
India. They were later established south of the Hebrews in
Palestine. The Philistines became the most important political
question for the young Hebrew kingdom. The Philistines arrived in
Palestine, perhaps at the same time when the last movements of the
immigrating Hebrews were taking place. They had previously been
located on Crete and perhaps along the coast of Asia Minor. Their
language is Semitic, but all sorts of individual traits of their
civilization point to the Indo-Germanic origin of an earlier
dominant stratum. Schuchardt and Macalister point to the graves
reminiscent of the battles around Troy and the helmet of the
"giant" Goliath, to his inclination to single combat, as well as to
their military organization and many traits of their civilization
that clearly suggest an Indo-Germanic background. The Philistines
landed, thus, and created the Palestinian State, which projected
like a wedge from as far as the Jordon and which divided the
Hebrews into two parts, a northern one and a southern one. The
battles with these people lasted for two centuries. At times one of
the peoples was the victor, while at other times the other people
were the victors or the vanquished. There was a fusion. It was not
until the reign of King Saul and especially King David that a final
independence was established for a long time, the kingdom composed
of the southern state of Juda and the northern state of Israel,
approximately around 1000 B.C. "Under David the Israelite nation
grew from the fusion of the two main ethnic groups of Palestine"
(Auerbach), Hebrews and Canaanites, (who were) basically similar to
each other as far as race was concerned.
One nation is now present with a racial composition that can be
explained from the history of its origin; the Orientalid race as
the main component, the Mediterranean race as an admixture, the
Near Eastern race as a strong second component and Nordic elements
mixed in now and then. The fact that the Nordic element was
repeatedly mentioned in this presentation must not give the
impression that this admixture was especially large! The Nordic
race had (and still has!) a tremendous migratory strength and rôle
as a conqueror, but the dominant strata in question were very thin,
and the Nordic blood migrating to the south was very quickly and
thoroughly eliminated because it was much less adapted to the
climate than all others. Only traces of their culture remained, the
language and other things, as evidences of their intellect.
In the discussion of the original racial elements of the later
Jewish people there always comes up the question of a Negroid
admixture. There is no doubt about its presence amongst the
present-day Jews. Occasionally one sees Negroid hair, lips and even
subdued Negroid nostrils. The explanation of this is difficult. It
is not very likely that a rather strong Negroid component came into
the Hebrews by way of the Egyptians. Further, remains of a Negritic
population in the prehistoric and historic Near East have been
conjectured which are alleged to be connected with the Negritic
strata of India (i.e., not African Negroes). These people would
have been of a small build, dark, strongly curly-haired and with
fleshy, thick upper lips. Traces (of these people) are found even
today in Baluchistan and southern Persia. Even this explanation is
not satisfactory. At the most, one may think of numerous Negro
slaves whom the Jews had in the Diaspora, of proselytization and a
mixture of the two races. (see, for example, Kittel's brilliant
presentation.) (Presumably, this refers to Gerhard Kittel's article
on the connubium with non-Jews in the second volume of the
Forschungen zur Judenfrage, pp.30-62. -- Translator)
For the race as a whole, this question is not of all too much
importance.
Thus, the Hebrew nation arose from the fusion of the Orientalid
race with the Near Eastern and Mediterranean races, with an
admixture of Nordic elements. The crossings which lead to the
formation of such a race do not have a quite uniform result from a
physical and mental point of view. We know that the physical traits
of two or more interbreeding races are passed on in the hereditary
process independently of each other and are then encountered in all
possible combinations, thus giving the mixed race its variegated
appearance. If the interbreeding components are numerically unequal
and if the mixing is not uniform throughout the whole ethnic group,
but is varied by strata, as is always the case with masters and
subjugated people, then the one kind of traits in the total gene
pool will naturally be numerically far more common than others.
However, as far as the appearance in life, that is, the image of
the nation in question, is concerned, it is not just a question of
these numerical differences in the gene pool, but of the hereditary
process of the individual traits, that is, specifically whether
they are inherited in a dominant or recessive manner, in other
words, in an apparent or concealed manner. The traits which are
inherited in a concealed manner actually make an appearance in a
racial mixture only in a manner which cannot be eliminated (unless
special selective conditions intervene). In the Jewish people, for
example, we see simultaneously the Orientalid and the Near Eastern
nasal forms and all intermediate forms. However, the Mediterranean
and once in a while the Negroid forms are present, as well as the
Nordic form. It must be assumed that there was occasional blondness
even in the ancient Jews, not just the present-day ones. {NOTE: As
a matter of fact, Lenz (Natur. Vers., Stuttgart) demonstrates that
blondness came about primarily in the Diaspora.} It can be
explained by that which was said above. In the case of hereditary
traits of a mental and psychological nature the hereditary process
is naturally basically the same. However, the effect will be a
quite different one because in this case parts of different origin
cannot be juxtaposed without a mutual influence. Physically, a
Negroid lip can be accompanied by a Nordic nose and blond hair by a
Near Eastern skull. The psychological personality, however,
demonstrates by its accomplishments and activities a combination of
the effects of character, imagination, intelligence, temperament,
etc. Then, too, one trait can characterize human beings mentally
and psychologically and dominate the other traits! Considering the
race as a whole, certain traits will become dominant here which are
the inherent chief components of the racial mixture. Hence, even in
the early history of the Jewish people are seen the emotion, the
hatred and the cruelty often developing into bloodlust on the part
of the sheep raiser of the Orientalid race along with the skill,
adaptability, cunning and desire to dominate of the city founder of
the Near Eastern race. In this regard one must not forget the
fanatic aspect of the monotheistic belief in Jehovah and the
concept of being the chosen people, conceived and retained
fanatically by desert nomads. These aspects have made possible in
the first place the isolation of the Jew amongst all his host
populations. It would be logical to point out the tendency to
unbridled fanaticism, particularly in the religious area, of the
Islamic culture, which was borne originally by the same
Mediterranean race!
Only an extremely strong selective process following racial
interbreeding can again eliminate the genetic components of a race
from the mixture, then, if this selective process especially
involves the characteristics of the one race for reasons of
adaptation. Without this strong selective process the individual
racial elements that went into the mixture remain extant
indefinitely. I could demonstrate that as long as thirty years ago
through several generations in the southern African crossbreeds.
Any glance at the Jews beginning with the time of the founding of
their state (in ancient times) down to today proves the same
thing.
Although from the time of the founding of the state onwards the
incorporation of foreign elements did not cease, as was pointed out
previously, the selective process within the closed Jewish nation
provided for a complete amalgamation. As is well known, after the
zenith of their power, after the death of Solomon in 933 (B.C), the
kingdom again divided into the northern kingdom of Israel and the
southern kingdom of Juda. Around 300 years later, Juda, and a bit
later Israel, succumbed to the Assyrians and then to the
Babylonians. And after the return of the Jews from the so-called
Babylonian captivity a considerable amount of intermarriage might
have commenced again, but in this process no foreign races were
admixed, only similar ones.
This selective process in a special direction thus stamped a
whole, particular race with quite specific racial traits of a
physical as well as mental-psychological kind. There is an
incorrect premise when one says that the Jews are not a race, but
rather a racial mixture and for that reason have no racial
characteristics peculiar to them. That is incorrect.
An ethnic group has a strong mental-psychological unity even if
it consists of a number of races that have been fusing together
with one another for many centuries if they harmonize together. The
Jewish ethnic group has undergone this fusion during its long
prehistory and history and the extremely strong selective process
brought about by its fate has shaped irretrievably the
characteristics of the Jewish intellect, of the Jewish psyche and
of the Jewish body. To examine these in detail is no longer the
task of this presentation. I can neither describe the physical
traits of the resultant nation of Israel nor those of the
present-day Jews. (The following lecture {on the racial biology of
the Jews by Otmar von Verschuer} will have the latter as its
theme.) To an even slighter extent can I describe here their
psychology or even just their psychic style, (to use Clauss'
words). That would be a task in itself, and indeed a very large and
important one.
The history of the racial origin was really completed long ago
with the Babylonian captivity and the partial return from it as far
as a people leading a political existence is concerned. Now there
would no longer have to follow the description of the Hebrews or of
the nation of Israel but rather the history of the Jews in the
Diaspora, again a large task and perhaps the most difficult
one.
My own intention was just the description of the origin itself.
I hope that I have shown the racial origin. And if I may make a
pronouncement as a systemitizer of races, it is the following: The
European peoples also originated after military conquest, but in
this instance the conquest by the Nordic race of other races. They
thus developed into a racial entity by fusion. However, their
racial elements are different ones. Originally, the Orientalid race
was not present in any European nation, nor the Near Eastern race
in any European nation.
These races are foreign to the European races and are of a
different nature. Moreover, the Semitic Arabs are not the same as
the Jews, because they have no Near Eastern Components. If Arabian
blood lives on in Spain it is racially not the same as Jewish
blood. However, the Jews, the race amalgamated from Orientalid and
Near Eastern components, are of a foreign nature to us Europeans.
They are different in body and above all psyche. They are most
foreign and distinct from the Nordic race, however, whose origins
took place under conditions which were just the opposite. Even
today we sense that instinctively.